Niqab is NOT Required

From the Book Jilbaab al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah

Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee

The main errors of those who make the face veil obligatory

1. The interpretation of al-idnaa in the verse of the Jilbaab to mean covering the face.

This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is to come close, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it. It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic.

2. The interpretation of jilbaab as a garment which covers the face.

Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Masood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (dir ) and the headscarf. Ibn Hazm also said, The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah () spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it. (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, It is the cloak worn above the headscarf. (vol. 3, p. 518)

3. The claim that the khimaar (headscarf) covers the head and the face.

In doing so the face has been arbitrarily added to its
meaning in order to make the verse:

"Let them drape their headscarves over their
busoms"

appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar
linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this
is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on
the khimaar and the prophetic statement, The salaah of a
woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar. This hadeeth confirms
the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves
 much less the scholars  use it as evidence that the covering of a
womans face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as
proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa

"to remove their clothing"

to mean jilbaab
further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before
marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars
openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it.

After checking the opinions of the early and later scholars in all the
specializations, I found that they unanimously hold that the khimaar is a head
covering. I have mentioned the names of more than twenty scholars, among them some of the
great Imaams and hadeeth scholars. For example, Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH)
who further added in his explanation, Nothing should be seen of her besides the
circle of her face.

4. The claim of a consensus (Ijmaa) on the face being
considered awrah.

Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that
the womans face was awrah and many who have no
knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false
claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which
he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its
falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn
Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the
face is not considered awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he
added, It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad. Many Hambalite
scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn
Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference
saying, Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling,
and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.

Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih
al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, There is no one under the dome
of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.
And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, You arent Ibn Muflih,
you are Muflih!

It is incumbent on me to convey Ibn Muflihs statements for
the readers because of the knowledge and many benefits contained in them. Included in them
is further confirmation of the falsehood of Shaykh at-Tuwaijrees claim and support
for the correctness of my position on the issue of uncovering the face. Ibn Muflih
stated the following in his valuable work al-Aadaab ash-Shariyyah 
which is among the references cited by Shaykh at-Tuwaijree (something which indicates that
he is aware of it, but has deliberately hidden these crucial facts from his readers while
claiming the contrary):

Is it correct to chastise marriageable women if they uncover
their faces in the street?

The answer depends on whether it is compulsory for women to cover their
faces or whether it is compulsory for men to lower their gaze from her. There are two
positions on this issue.

Regarding the hadeeth of Jareer in which he said, I asked Allaahs
Messenger about the sudden inadvertent glance and he instructed me to look away.
Al-Qaadee Iyaad commented, The scholars, May Allaah Most High
have mercy on them, have said that there is proof in this hadeeth that it is not
compulsory for a woman to cover her face in the street. Instead, it is a recommended sunnah
for her to do so and it is compulsory for the man to lower his gaze from her at all times,
except for a legislated purpose. Shaykh Muhyud-deen an-Nawawee mentioned that
without further explanation.

Then al-Muflih mentioned Ibn Taymiyyahs statement which at-Tuwaijree relies
on in his book (page 170), while feigning ignorance of the statements of the majority of
scholars. Statements like those of al-Qaadee Iyaad and
an-Nawawees agreement with it.

Then al-Muflih said, On the basis of that, is chastisement
legal? Chastisement is not allowed in issues in where there is a difference of opinion,
and the difference has already been mentioned. As regards our opinion and that of a group
of Shaafiite scholars and others, looking at a marriageable woman without
desire or in a secluded circumstance is permissible. Therefore, chastisement is not
proper.

This answer is in complete agreement with Imaam Ahmads statement,
It is not proper that a jurist oblige people to follow his opinion (math-hab).
And this is if the truth were on his side. What of the case
where the jurist proudly, dishonestly misleads people and declares other Muslims to be
disbelievers as at-Tuwaijree did on page 249 of his book saying,

 Whoever permits women to expose their faces and uses the
proofs of al-Albaanee has flung open the door for women to publicly flaunt their beauty
and emboldened them to commit the reprehensible acts done by women who uncover their faces
today. And on page 233 he said,  and to disbelief in the verses of
Allaah.

Those are his words  May Allaah reform him and guide him. What
would he say about Ibn Muflih, an-Nawawee, al-Qaadee Iyaad and
other Palestinian scholars, as well as the majority of scholars who preceded them and who
are my salaf regarding my opinion on this matter?

5. The agreement of at-Tuwaijree and the extremists with him to
explain away the authentic hadeeths which contradict their opinion.

At-Tuwaijree did this with the Khathamiyyah hadeeth. They developed a number of comical methods to nullify its
implications. I have refuted them all in ar-Radd and one of them in Jilbaab
al-Marah al-Muslimah. Some reputable scholars have said that the hadeeth doesnt
contain a clear statement that her face was exposed. This is among the farthest opinions
from the truth. For, if her face wasnt exposed, where did the narrator or the viewer
get the idea that she was beautiful? And what was al-Fadl repeatedly looking at?
The truth is that this is among the strongest and most clear proofs that a womans
face is not awrah. In spite of that, there
remains a group that insists that she was in ihraam while knowing that her ihraam
does not prevent her from draping some of her clothing over her face. At-Tuwaijree
does accept sometimes that her face was uncovered but he cancels its implication by
saying, There is no evidence in it that she continuously exposed her face! He
means that the wind must have exposed her face and at that instant al-Fadl ibn
Abbaas saw it. Is it possible for an Arab to say that after reading in the hadeeth
al-Fadl began to stare while turning towards her, and in another
narration  so he began to look at her and her beauty amazed him.
Isnt this pride with two protruding horns? At other times at-Tuwaijree interprets it
as al-Fadl looking at her size and stature.

6. The frequent use of inauthentic hadeeths and unreliable narrations.

For example, the hadeeth of Ibn Abbaas
about exposing only one eye is commonly used by those who insist that women are obliged to
cover their faces in spite of their knowledge of its inauthenticity. In fact, one among
them also declared it inauthentic. Perhaps the most important of these unreliable hadeeth
commonly used as evidence is the one in which the Prophet is reported to have said, Are
you both blind? They blindly followed at-Tuwaijree and the others in claiming
that this inauthentic narration was strengthened by other supportive narrations and that
it was evidence for the prohibition of women from looking at men, even if they are blind.
They took this position in spite of the fact that the narration was classified inauthentic
by the leading verification experts among the hadeeth scholars like, Imaam Ahmad,
al-Bayhaqee and Ibn Abdil-Barr. Al-Qurtubee related that the narration was not
considered authentic among the scholars of hadeeth. Consequently, many Palestinian
hambalite scholars made their rulings on that basis. Furthermore, that is what the science
of hadeeth and its methodology requires as was clearly stated in al-Irwaa. However, in spite of all that evidence to the contrary, Shaykh
Abdul-Qaadir as-Sindee had the nerve to go along with Shaykh at-Tuwaijree and others
and claim that its chain of narration was authentic. By doing that he exposed himself and
his ignorance or feigned ignorance. It is unfortunate that he took this position, because
the hadeeths chain contains an unknown narrator from whom only one person
narrated along with its contradiction to what leading scholars have narrated. Contrary to
the level of scholarship that we are used to from Shaykh as-Sindee, he has brought in
support of his claim the most amazing things. He arguments unexpectedly contain deception,
misguidance, blind following, hiding knowledge and turning away from his own fundamental
principles. Among the amazing positions is Shaykh as-Sindees feigned ignorance that
the narration contradicts the hadeeth of Faatimah bint Qays which contains the
Prophets permission for her to stay at the home of the blind companion, Ibn Umm
al-Maktoom, whom she would be able see. The Prophet gave the reason for that instruction
in his statement to her, For if you take off your head scarf, he wont see
you. In at-Tabaraanees narration from Faatimah, she said,
He instructed me to be at Ibn Umm Maktooms home because he couldnt see
me whenever I took my head scarf off.

There are also a number of other unreliable hadeeths gathered by
at-Tuwaijree in his book. I mentioned ten of them in my response, and among them are some
fabricated traditions.

7. The classification of some authentic hadeeths and confirmed narrations
from the Companions as inauthentic.

The extremists have declared well-established reliable narrations as
unreliable and feigned ignorance of strengthening narrations. They have further declared
some narrations extremely inauthentic, like the hadeeth of Aaishah
concerning the woman who reaches puberty, Nothing should be seen of her besides
her face and hands. They have persistently declared it inauthentic  the
ignorant among them blindly following others devoid of knowledge. In so doing, they
contradict those among the leading scholars of hadeeth who strengthen it like
al-Bayhaqee and ath-Thahabee. Most of them, including some prominent scholars, feign
ignorance of its various chains of narration. In fact, at-Tuwaijree openly stated on page
236 of his book that this statement was only narrated in Aaishahs hadeeth.
Even though he has seen with his own eyes on pages 57-9 of my book two other chains: one
of which is from Asmaa bint Umays and the other from Qataadah in the abbreviated (mursal)
format with an authentic chain of narration. Many of the blind followers followed him,
including some female authors as in Hijaabuki ukhtee al-muslimah [Your veil,
my sister Muslim], page 33.

They also pretend to be ignorant of the leading hadeeth scholars and others who
strengthened it, like al-Munthiree, az-Zaylaee, al-Asqlaanee and
ash-Shawkaanee. Some of those who promote themselves as being among the well versed in
this noble science  in their forefront Shaykh as-Sindee  claim that some of
its narrations are extremely weak and unreliable in order to escape from the hadeeth science
rule that unreliable narrations are strengthened by narrations similar to
them. In doing that, they delude their readers into thinking that no one ruled the
weak narrators, like Abdullaah ibn Laheeah, trustworthy and that they cannot
be used as supportive evidence. In doing that, they contradict the methodology of the hadeeth
scholars in using supportive evidence. Among them is Imaam Ahmad and Ibn Taymiyyah
 may Allaah have mercy on them. Likewise, they all feign ignorance that the scholars
 among them Imaam ash-Shaafiee confirm the hadeeth mursal if most
scholars use it as evidence, as is the case of Aaishahs hadeeth.

Other strengthening factors may be added to the above.

(a) The hadeeth has been narrated by Qataadah from Aaishah.
(b) It has been narrated in another chain from Asmaa.
(c) All three narrators of the hadeeth ruled according to it.

Qataadah stated in his interpretation of the verse on draping, Allaah has placed
on them the requirement to cover the eyebrows, That is, and not on their
faces as stated by at-Tabaree.

Aaishah said, regarding the female in ihraam, She may
drape the garment on her face, if she wishes. This was narrated by al-Bayhaqee in an
authentic chain of narrators. There is clear evidence in Aaishahs giving
the female pilgrim a choice in draping that in her opinion the face was not awrah.
Otherwise she would have made it obligatory on them as those who contradict it do. Because
of their position, most of the extremist authors, with at-Tuwaijree in the forefront, hid
this statement of Umm al-Mumineen, Aaishah from their readers. The
author of Faslul-khitaab [The Definitive Statement] deliberately
deleted this portion of al-Bayhaqees narration in his book. This being only one of a
number of similar disreputable acts which I have exposed in my book. The supportive
evidence is that this authentic narration from her strengthens her hadeeth from the
Prophet. This is among the facts that people are unaware of or they pretend ignorance of,
either choice is bitter to swallow.

As for Asmaa, it has been authentically reported from Qays ibn Abee Haazim that
he saw her as a woman of white complexion with tatoos on her hands.

(d) The narration of Ibn Abbaas earlier mentioned, She should
pull the jilbaab (cloak) close to her face without putting it on her face.
His interpretation of the verse of adornment

"except what appears from
it"

as referring tothe face and hands was similar. There is also a
similar narration from Ibn Umar to the same effect.

At this point,
a bitter reality must be noted due to the lessons which may be gained from it, the
knowledge which it contains and is service as a reminder of the wise saying: The
truth is not know by people, know the truth and you will know people.

At the same time that Shaykh at-Tuwaijree insists on rejecting the hadeeth
of Aaishah and its supporting evidences, among them Qaatadahs mursal
narration, he willingly accepts another inauthentic hadeeth from her
with mursal support. In that hadeeth it is mentioned  that
she wore a niqaab (face veil)  and that she was supposed to have
described the Prophets wife Safiyyah and the Ansaar women as
 a jewess among jewesses  which is considered by scholars to
be a very erroneous statement (munkar jiddan). The Shaykh argues on page 181,
It has mursal supportive evidence, and quotes one of the mursal hadeeths
of Ataa containing a known liar in its chain of narration.

One should reflect on the great difference between this fabricated
supportive evidence and the authentic supportive evidence of Qataadah further supported by
other evidences, then ask, Why did at-Tuwaijree accept the second hadeeth of
Aaishah and not the first? The obvious answer is that the accepted one
contains reference to wearing the niqaab  even though it does not indicate
obligation  while the rejected one denies it. Thus, in this regard, the Shaykh did
not base his position on Islaamic legal principles, but on something similar to the Jewish
principle: The ends justify the means. May Allaah help us.

8. Placing unreasonable conditions

Among the amazing practices of some latter day blind following hanafite
scholars and others is that on one hand they agree with us regarding the permissibility of
women exposing their faces, because that was the position of their Imaams, but on the
other hand they agree with the extremists in opposition to their Imaams. They make ijtihaad
(while claiming taqleed) by adding the condition that the society be safe from fitnah
to the position of the Imaams. This refers to the fitnah caused by women to
men. Then one of the ignorant contemporary blind followers went to the extreme of actually
attributing this condition to the Imaams themselves. Among some of those
having no knowledge, this resulted in their concluding that there is essentially no
difference between the position of the Imaams and the extremists.

It is obvious to jurists that this condition is invalid because it
implies that humans know something which the Lord missed knowing. That is, the temptation
of women did not exist during the time of the Prophet () thus we had to create a
special ruling for it which did not exist previously. In fact, the fitnah did exist
during the era of divine legislation and the story of al-Fadl ibn
Abbaas trial with the Khathamiyyah woman and his repeated looking at her
is not far from the readers memories.

It is well known that when Allaah Most High instructed men and women to
lower their gazes and instructed women to veil themselves in front of men, He did that to
block the road to corruption and prevent temptation. In spite of that, He  Most
Great and Glorious  did not command that they cover their faces and hands in front
of them. The Prophet () further emphasized that in the story of al-Fadl by not
commanding the woman to cover her face. And Allaah was truthful when He said,

"And
your Lord is not forgetful"

The reality is that the condition of there not being fitnah was
only mentioned by scholars regarding the mans looking at the womans face, as
in al-Fiqh alaa al-mathaahib al-arbaah, page 12. They said,
That [the womans face may be uncovered] is permissible on condition that there
is safety from temptation, and that is true, contrary to what the blind followers
practice. They conclude from it that the woman is obliged to cover her face, when in fact
it is not a necessary consequence. They know that the condition of safety from temptation
also applies to women. For it is not permissible for them to stare at a mans face
except where there is safety from temptation. Is it then a necessary consequence that men
also veil their faces from women to prevent temptation as some tribes called the Tawareg
do.

They would have a basis in fiqh of the Quraan and Sunnah if they
said that a woman veiled in correct jilbaab who fears being harmed by some corrupt
individuals due to her face being exposed is obliged to cover her face to prevent harm and
temptation. In fact, it could even be said that it is obligatory on her not to leave her
home if she feared that some evil authorities supported by a leader who does not rule by
what Allaah revealed, as exists in some Arab countries since a few years ago, would pull
her jilbaab from her head. As to making this obligation a compulsory law for all
women everywhere and in all eras, even if there did not exist any harm for veiled women,
No. Absolutely not. Allaah was truthful when He said,

"Do they have partners who
legislated for them in the religion what Allaah did not permit??"

These are the most significant of the extremist oppositions
mistakes which I thought needed brief mention due their strong link to the contents of
this book. I then closed ar-Radd al-Mufhim with a reminder that extremism in the
religion  considering that the Wise Legislator forbade it will not bring any good.
And it is not possible for it to produce a generation of young Muslim women carrying
Islaamic knowledge and practice moderately balanced, with neither excesses nor
deficiencies. Not like what I have heard about some young female adherents in Arab
countries when they heard the Prophets statement, The woman in ihraam
should neither wear a niqaab nor gloves, they did not accept it saying
instead, We will wear our niqaabs and gloves! No doubt, this was
a direct result of the extremist views which they heard regarding the obligation of
covering their faces.

I certainly cannot imagine that this type of extremism  and this
is only one example from many which I have  can possibly produce for us salafee women
able to do everything their religiously guided social life demands of them in a way
similar to the righteous women of the Salaf.